The Heritage Hotel Manila vs Piglas Heritage

8/12/2019 The Heritage Hotel Manila vs Piglas Heritage

1/10

1

SECOND DIVISION

THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA G.R. No. 177024(OWNED AND OPERATED BY

GRAND PLAZA HOTEL

CORPORATION)

Petitioner, Present:

Quisumbing,J., Chairperson,- versus - Carpio,*

Chico-Nazario,**Brion, and

Abad,JJ.PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS

NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SAHERITAGE MANILA Promulgated:

(PIGLAS-HERITAGE),

Respondent. October 30, 2009x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISIONABAD, J.:

This case is about a companys objections to the registration of its rank and

file union for non-compliance with the requirements of its registration.

The Facts and the Case

Sometime in 2000, certain rank and file employees of petitioner Heritage

Hotel Manila (petitioner company) formed the Heritage Hotel Employees Union

(the HHE union). The Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital

Region (DOLE-NCR) later issued a certificate of registration[1]to this union.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn1


2/10

2

Subsequently, the HHE union filed a petition for certification election [2]that

petitioner company opposed. The company alleged that the HHE union

misrepresented itself to be an independent union, when it was, in truth, a local

chapter of the National Union of Workers in Hotel and Restaurant and Allied

Industries (NUWHRAIN). The company claimed that the HHE union intentionallyomitted disclosure of its affiliation with NUWHRAIN because the companys

supervisors union was already affiliated with it.[3] Thus, the company also filed a

petition for the cancellation of the HHE unions registration certificate.[4]

Meanwhile, the Med-Arbiter granted the HHE unions petition for

certification election.[5] Petitioner company appealed the decision to the Secretary

of Labor but the latter denied the appeal.[6] The Secretary also denied petitioners

motion for reconsideration, prompting the company to file a petitionfor certiorari[7]with the Court of Appeals.

On October 12, 2001 the Court of Appeals issued a writ of injunction against

the holding of the HHE unions certification election, effective until the petition for

cancellation of that unions registration shall have been resolved with

finality.[8] The decision of the Court of Appeals became final when the HHE union

withdrew the petition for review that it filed with this Court.[9]

On December 10, 2003 certain rank and file employees of petitionercompany held a meeting and formed another union, the respondent Pinag-Isang

Galing at Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Heritage Manila (the PIGLAS

union). This union applied for registration with the DOLE-NCR[10]and got its

registration certificate on February 9, 2004. Two months later, the members of the

first union, the HHE union, adopted a resolution for its dissolution. The HHE

union then filed a petition for cancellation of its union registration.[11]

On September 4, 2004 respondent PIGLAS union filed a petition forcertification election[12]that petitioner company also opposed, alleging that the new

unions officers and members were also those who comprised the old

union. According to the company, the employees involved formed the PIGLAS

union to circumvent the Court of Appeals injunction against the holding of the

certification election sought by the former union. Despite the companys
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn4


3/10

3

opposition, however, the Med-Arbiter granted the petition for certification

election.[13]

On December 6, 2004 petitioner company filed a petition to cancel the union

registration of respondent PIGLAS union.[14] The company claimed that thedocuments submitted with the unions application for registration bore the

following false information:

(a) The List of Members showed that the PIGLAS union had 100

union members;[15](b) The Organizational Minutes said that 90 employees attended

the meeting on December 10, 2003;[16](c) The Attendance Sheet of the meeting of December 10, 2003

bore the signature of 127 members who ratified the unionsConstitution and By-Laws;[17]and

(d) The Signature Sheet bore 128 signatures of those who attendedthat meeting.[18]

Petitioner company alleged that the misrepresentation was evidenced by the

discrepancy in the number of union members appearing in the application and the

list as well as in the number of signatories to the attendance and signature

sheets. The minutes reported that only 90 employees attended the meeting. Thecompany further alleged that 33 members of respondent PIGLAS union were

members of the defunct HHE union. This, according to the company, violated the

policy against dual unionism and showed that the new union was merely an alter

ego of the old.

On February 22, 2005 the DOLE-NCR denied the companys petition to

cancel respondent PIGLAS unions registration for the reason that the

discrepancies in the number of members stated in the applications supporting

documents were not material and did not constitute misrepresentation. As for the

charge of dual unionism, the same is not a ground for canceling registration. It

merely exposed a union member to a possible charge of disloyalty, an internal

matter. Here, the members of the former union simply exercised their right to self-

organization and to the freedom of association when they subsequently joined the

PIGLAS union.[19]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn15


4/10

4

On appeal, the Bureau of Labor Relation (BLR) affirmed the ruling of the

DOLE-NCR. It reasoned that respondent PIGLAS unions organization meeting

lasted for 12 hours. It was possible for the number of attendees to have increased

from 90 to 128 as the meeting progressed. Besides, with a total of 250 employeesin the bargaining unit, the union needed only 50 members to comply with the 20

percent membership requirement. Thus, the union could not be accused of

misrepresentation since it did not pad its membership to secure

registration.

As for the issue of dual unionism, it has become moot and academic, said the

BLR, because of the dissolution of the old union and the cancellation of its

certificate of registration.

[20]

Petitioner company filed a petition for certiorariwith the Court of

Appeals,[21]assailing the order of the BLR. But the latter court dismissed the

petition, not being accompanied by material documents and portions of the

record.[22] The company filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching parts of the

record that were deemed indispensable but the court denied it for lack of

merit.[23] Hence, the company filed this petition for review under Rule 45.

Issues Presented

The petition presents the following issues:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissingthe petition for certioraribefore it for failure of petitioner company to

attach certain material portions of the record;

2. Whether or not the union made fatal misrepresentation inits application for union registration; and

3. Whether or not dual unionism is a ground for canceling

a unions registration.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn22


5/10

5

The Rulings of the Court

First. While the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the companys

petition initially for failure to attach material portions of the record, the courtshould have bended back a little when petitioner company subsequently attached

those missing materials to its motion for reconsideration. As a general rule,

petitions for certiorari that lack copies of essential pleadings and portions of the

record may be dismissed but this rule has not been regarded as absolute. The

omission may be cured.[24]

The Court of Appeals has three courses of action when the annexes to the

petition are insufficient. It may dismiss the petition,[25]require the submission of

the relevant documents, or order the filing of an amended petition with the required

pleadings or documents. A petition lacking in essential pleadings or portions of

the record may still be given due course, or reinstated if earlier dismissed, upon

subsequent submission of the necessary documents or to serve the higher interest

of justice.[26]

Second. Since a remand of the case to the Court of Appeals for a

determination of the substantive issues will only result in more delays and since

these issues have been amply argued by the opposing sides in the various pleadingsand documents they submitted to this Court, the case may now be resolved on the

merits.

Did respondent PIGLAS union commit fraud and misrepresentation in its

application for union registration? We agree with the DOLE-NCR and the BLR

that it did not. Except for the evident discrepancies as to the number of union

members involved as these appeared on the documents that supported the unions

application for registration, petitioner company has no other evidence of the

alleged misrepresentation. But those discrepancies alone cannot be taken as an

indication that respondent misrepresented the information contained in these

documents.

The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation

in securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. It is
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn26


6/10

6

serious because once such charge is proved, the labor union acquires none of the

rights accorded to registered organizations. Consequently, charges of this nature

should be clearly established by evidence and the surrounding circumstances.[27]

Here, the discrepancies in the number of union members or employees statedin the various supporting documents that respondent PIGLAS union submitted to

labor authorities can be explained. While it appears in the minutes of the December

10, 2003 organizational meeting that only 90 employees responded to the roll call

at the beginning, it cannot be assumed that such number could not grow to 128 as

reflected on the signature sheet for attendance. The meeting lasted 12 hours from

11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. There is no evidence that the meeting hall was locked up

to exclude late attendees.

There is also nothing essentially mysterious or irregular about the fact that

only 127 members ratified the unions constitution and by-laws when 128 signed

the attendance sheet. It cannot be assumed that all those who attended approved of

the constitution and by-laws. Any member had the right to hold out and refrain

from ratifying those documents or to simply ignore the process.

At any rate, the Labor Code[28]and its implementing rules[29]do not require

that the number of members appearing on the documents in question should

completely dovetail. For as long as the documents and signatures are shown to begenuine and regular and the constitution and by-laws democratically ratified, the

union is deemed to have complied with registration requirements.

Petitioner company claims that respondent PIGLAS union was required to

submit the names of allits members comprising at least 20 percent of the

employees in the bargaining unit. Yet the list it submitted named only 100

members notwithstanding that the signature and attendance sheets reflected a

membership of 127 or 128 employees. This omission, said the company, amountedto material misrepresentation that warranted the cancellation of the unions

registration.

But, as the labor authorities held, this discrepancy is immaterial. A

comparison of the documents shows that, except for six members, the names found

in the subject list are also in the attendance and signature sheets. Notably, the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn29


7/10

7

bargaining unit that respondent PIGLAS union sought to represent consisted of 250

employees. Only 20 percent of this number or 50 employees were required to

unionize. Here, the union more than complied with such requirement.

Labor laws are liberally construed in favor of labor especially if doing sowould affirm its constitutionally guaranteed right to self-organization.[30] Here, the

PIGLAS unions supporting documents reveal the unmistakable yearning of

petitioner companys rank and file employees to organize. This yearning should

not be frustrated by inconsequential technicalities.

Third. The fact that some of respondent PIGLAS unions members were

also members of the old rank and file union, the HHE union, is not a ground for

canceling the new unions registration. The right of any person to join an

organization also includes the right to leave that organization and join another

one. Besides, HHE union is dead. It had ceased to exist and its certificate of

registration had already been cancelled. Thus, petitioners arguments on this point

may also be now regarded as moot and academic.

WHEREFORE,the Court DENIESthe petition and AFFIRMSthe

decision of the Bureau of Labor Relations in BLR-A-26-3-05 dated May 26, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Justice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftn32


8/10

8

WE CONCUR:

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBINGAssociate Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ARTURO D. BRIONAssociate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached inconsultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of theCourts Division.

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBINGAssociate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the DivisionChairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above


9/10

9

Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of

the opinion of the Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO

Chief Justice

* Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, per Special Order No. 757

dated October 12, 2009.** Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, per Special Order No.

759 dated October 12, 2009.[1]Rollo, p. 58.[2] Id. at 59-70.

[3] Id. at 100.[4] Id. at 109-120.[5] Id. at 99-103.[6] Id. at 218.[7] Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 65033.[8]Rollo, pp. 137-147.[9] Id. at 293-296.[10] Id. at 192.[11] Id. at 182-190.[12] Id. at 233-241.[13] Id. at 272-274.[14] Id. at 44-55.[15] Id. at 161-162.[16]

Id. at 157-158.[17] Id. at 148-154.[18] Id. at 164-171.[19] Id. at 375-377.[20] Id. at 333-338.[21] Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 97237.[22]Rollo, pp. 33-34.[23] Id. at 289.[24]Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora, G.R. No. 148247, August 7, 2006, 498 SCRA 59, 69.[25] Last paragraph of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.[26] Suan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150819, July 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 760, 767-768.[27] San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization v. San

Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union-Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino, G.R. No. 171153,

September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 125, 144.[28] The pertinent Labor Code provision states:

ART. 234. REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION

Any applicant labor organization, association or group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality

and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the

certificate of registration based on the following requirements:

(a) Fifty (P50.00) registration fee;

(b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address of the labor organization, the

minutes of the organizational meetings and the list of the workers who participated in such

meetings;
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref1


10/10

10

(c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty percent (20%) of all the employees

in the bargaining unit where it seeks to operate;

(d) If the union has been in existence for one or more years, copies of its annual financial reports;

and

(e) Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant union, minutes of its adoption

or ratification and the list of the members who participated in it.[29] Rule 3, Section 2.A of Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 states that an application for registration of

an independent labor union must be accompanied by the following:

1) the name of the applicant labor union, its principal address, the name of its officers and their

respective addresses, approximate number of employees in the bargaining unit where it seeks

to operate, with a statement that it is not reported as a chartered local of any federation or

national union;

2) the minutes of the organizational meeting(s) and the list of employees who participated in the

said meeting(s);

3) the name of all its members comprising at least 20% of the employees in the bargaining unit;

4) the annual financial reports if the applicant has been in existence for one or more years,

unless it has not collected any amount from the members, in which case a statement to this

effect shall be included in the application;

5) the applicants constitution and by-laws, minutes of its adoption and ratification and the list

of the members who participated in it. The list of ratifying members shall be dispensed with

where the constitution and by-laws was ratified or adopted during the organizational meeting.In such a case, the factual circumstances of the ratification shall be recorded in the minutes of

the organizational meeting(s).[30] San Miguel Corporation (Mandaue Packaging Products Plants) v. Mandaue Packing Products Plants-San

Miguel Packaging Products-San Miguel Corporation Monthlies Rank-and-File Union-FFW, G.R. No. 152356,

August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 107, 127.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177024.htm#_ftnref31

The Heritage Hotel Manila vs Piglas Heritage

Documents

Transcript of The Heritage Hotel Manila vs Piglas Heritage